From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Wed Oct 01 2003 - 21:46:20 EDT
Hi !
This, I believe, is the opportunity for us at ASA
to demonstrate how we can approach an evaluation
of the claims without "bias"!!! (Does anyone want
to bet that this will happen?)
What I mean is that, instead of looking for
reasons for why these strange (so called "YECs")
are people who are flat outright _wrong_ aall of
the time --- we can explore their claims and see
if their is any reason why they might be RIGHT
this time!
Lets us see what happens on this scientific list.
So far I have seen very, very, very little
objectivity --- and an awful lot of prejudgment
of classes of people -- over and over again. It
does turn one's stomach on occasion.
Walt
"Duff,Robert Joel" wrote:
> Hi Wayne,No doubt there is bias among editors
> and reviewers. I've definitely encountered
> biases in my own field. Many of the main
> characters, and thus reviewers, of literature
> dealing with land plant evolution have long
> thought, based on little evidence, that
> liverworts are the basal extant lineage of land
> plants. I happen to think otherwise based on
> what I think is at least as compelling data but
> publishing data contrary to that idea has been
> very difficult though not impossible. What I am
> asking is that the YEC demonstae the bias rather
> than just claiming the bias. Yes, there is bias
> but what is the exact nature of that bias and
> how is it expressed? The YEC would want you to
> believe that bias is expressed in particular
> forms but I'm not so sure this is what they
> would see. Do you think the reviewers of their
> articles if submitted would attempt to provide
> reasons for their rejection or would they simply
> resort to name calling and say we can't publish
> anything by those people. I think there would
> be some reviewers that would provide rude and
> unintelligent responses (I've had some of those
> with respect to my own work) but I also think
> that some would provide what they feel are real
> reasons why the manuscrips should not be
> published in a particular journal and it would
> be intersted to see if the YEC would acknowledge
> the criticisms and be able to respond to them
> and show how these reasons are bogus. If they
> were to submit, get reviews, show the reviews to
> the public, as permitted, it would go a long way
> to blunting some of the criticism they recieve.
> One would think they would want to demonstrate
> they are trying even if ultimately they must
> fall back on their original claims of bias. The
> lack of effort (and it wouldn't even be that
> much effort!) suggests they really don't care
> about trying to gain legitimacy with their
> Christian peers but ONLY do what they think they
> need to do to appeal to the base constituency
> that doesn't require evidence to support any of
> their claims. JoelJoel wrote:
>
>
>
> > It has been too easy for us to claim
> > they should publish in refereed
> > profession journals and then have
> > them respond with generic claims
> > about biases. I think it is time to
> > push for scientific evidence to back
> > the claims rather than innuendo.
>
> There almost surely is bias in the
> scientific journals. Not all of it is
> undeserved, but I would wager that it
> is almost certainly grossly
> unfair. Even for rather prosaic
> issues, sometimes the mindset of
> some scientists toward people who are
> different does not particularly
> impress me. In almost blatant double
> standard form,
> they can also keep asking for more and
> more "evidence" to fill in
> some grasping-at-straws "gap" they're
> desperately hanging onto,
> they can also ignore data, and they
> can try to dismiss problems with
> half-baked appeals to future
> discoveries,..... just like
> Creationists
> (at least) appear to be doing most of
> the time. Both sometimes even
> resort to various forms of "politics"
> when their "science" can't stand
> on its own, which is probably one of
> the __greatest__ evils of all I think.
>
> -----
> Could this be me one day? Knowledge
> and wisdom are best evidenced
> by signs of humility and magnanimity,
> in my opinion. Temptation is hard,
> but I _hope_ this is not the example I
> will set.
> -----
>
> Nevertheless, a __sound__ theory is
> not shaken by hard testing. In fact,
> it
> only gets __much__ stronger and more
> unassailable by its opponents.
>
> Evolution is probably the most opposed
> theory in the entire history
> of science. It will probably will
> take more than 400 years for some
> pious folk to "forgive" Darwin. It is
> very unfortunate because I still think
>
> the roots of the best science are
> strongly influenced by scripture. I
> just
> hope we (Christians) set a much better
> example in this new century.
>
> by Grace alone we proceed,
> Wayne
>
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 21:46:18 EDT